Dick Cheney Calls Democrats Defeatists
If you’ve been wondering where Vice President Dick Cheney has been (definitely not hunting since there have been no new headlines) he has been quite busy doing a medley of his favorite hot-button lines to party faithful audiences:
Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that Democratic leaders aren’t doing enough to fight terrorism and said Americans must “reject any strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies.Cheney, speaking at a party fundraiser, said Republicans must keep national security on the minds of voters heading into the November midterm election.
Cheney used his 20-minute address to defend the Bush administration’s war on terrorism and point fingers at Democrats.
And you can tell which finger on each hand he was pointing, too:
“We have to stay on the offensive until the danger to civilization is removed,” Cheney told about 110 people at the Pfister Hotel in downtown Milwaukee.
“Danger to civilization?” I thought this was a speech about terrorism and national security, not Jackass Number Two. AND:
Cheney attacked Democrats for turning their backs on Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., after his loss in the primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont.
This suggests an appeal to centrist Democrats, a further effort to portray the Democratic party as a transformed party of the nearly exclusive left, and another affirmation that Joe Lieberman is the administration’s favorite Democrat (which is bad or good thing, depending on where you’re politically coming from.). MORE:
He took Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean to task for saying the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer and accused Dean and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., of advocating what Cheney called a failed policy of retreat in the war against terrorism.The vice president chided Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada for opposing the Patriot Act and suggesting the U.S. should not have invaded Iraq, even if it meant leaving Saddam in power.
WHEW! Didn’t he take a breath?
But Harry Reid had a few things to say:
Reid responded Monday by saying the White House has lost all credibility on matters of national security.“With Iraq in a civil war, Afghanistan moving backward and our own borders unsecured, it’s clear George Bush and Dick Cheney are desperate to hide their record and distort the truth,” Reid said.
What’s not amusing is the fact that Cheney is (again) stooping to demonization, in effect saying that if Americans vote for Democrats they’ll die. Republicans=Life. Democrats=Death. This doesn’t amuse this independent voter. We could make a cheap shot joke about the lifespan of some citizens who lived in a certain city in Louisiana and counted on Cheney & Co…but we wouldn’t stoop so low…
Just title the 2006 GOP campaign The Fear Factor.
39 Responses to “Dick Cheney Calls Democrats Defeatists”
Here’s the right way to respond to the Cheney stealth fundraiser. Kudos to this candidate!
Test
You know Joe, as I have said a time or two over at my place, Dick Cheney reminds me of one of the mad villans that Ian Flemming created for James Bond to fight. Reagan’s advisors knew the guy was crazy – George HW’s advisors knew the guy was crazy. They both kept him at a distance. Those were the good old days.
It ain’t season yet. Which reminds me. I’ve gotta get my licenses in order.
So Cheney has done 91 fundraisers for Republican candidates this election cycle. Must not be too busy worrying about the war in Iraq, catching USB, fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, or keeping Iran from getting nukes! Don’t we need him in Washington to protect us from the Axis of Evil? He is, after all, on the taxpayers’ dime!
OFF TOPIC:
Is anyone else having problems with Yahoo?
I can’t get any Yahoo pages to work…can’t get to e-mail….etc.
And Yahoo customer No Service is a complete waste of time.
that’s why the GOP is going to be okay in Nov. All they need is their base because the rest of America probably won’t vote on election day. Never underestimate the laziness of the America public.
Limbaugh and Hannity will pick up the theme and the noise machine will be in full swing. I wonder how generals who have been critical of the war or intelligence reports that do not support the administration will be handled.
What’s not amusing is the fact that Cheney is (again) stooping to demonization, in effect saying that if Americans vote for Democrats they’ll die. Republicans=Life. Democrats=Death. This doesn’t amuse this independent voter.
Yes….Bad Cheney! So make sure you vote Republican to show your displeasure. And Bashing some Democrats ala
Dean Broder will surely help Karl see the error of his ways.
Cause you know, voting Democratic is such a terrible put upon way for saintly independents to protest the Republican attenp to get rid of the Republic.
Try a polite but firm call to some Republican’s secretary instead. That should work so well, and helps one stay above the fray with pristine hands unsullied..
General Batiste, commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, just another weak, traitorous defeatist.
I know what Cheney is doing, this is the first step to allowing torture for defeatists!
I can see the campaign now:
The Democrats -the party of defeatists, Hitler appeasers, Bin Laden enablers, who put the rights of terrorists above the safety of Amereicans and who love to cut and run when the going gets tough so they can raise the taxes on middle class families, and take God out of your schools!
Sounds like some totalitarian regime B.S. Kim heheheh
However, I wouldn’t be suprised if the Repubs use that schtick.
We SO need a solid 3rd party in this country it’s sickening.
An example of why I thought Dean Esmay’s “turtle” analysis wasn’t quite right. This sure seems like an attack to me, and it is not uncommon.
C.Prez: “We SO need a solid 3rd party in this country it’s sickening.”
Amen to that!
Just a question: If Cheney’s assertion that the Republican party is taking a stronger stance against terrorism is so offensive, why don’t the Democrats just state their proposed policies to deal with terrorism and national security? If those proposals stand up to scrutiny, then the Democrats should be shouting them from the rooftops. Instead, over and over again, the response to the Republican rhetoric is: “There they go calling us names again!” Can we please grow up? If you feel that the administration is pushing emotional and immature rationale to sell it’s policies, then the best way to counter that is to refrain from sinking to that level yourself.
Show me the safer America. Show me the strong stance against terrorism. Show me a world in which we are more safe against terrorism today than we were 6 years ago.
Show me.
This is a direct question to the policies of your boys. This isn’t about what could be done better. I argue that doing NOTHING would be better than what they did. So, show me how doing nothing, changing nothing, is worse. Defend them. Show me this safer world we live in.
Show me how they will make it better from this point on. Show me how their understanding, their knowledge, and their sensitivities enable them to take us from where we are now to a better place.
The onus is on you. You and your boys have power.
Show me.
egrubs,
First, they’re not “my boys”. I am not happy with this administration either. Second, to make the kind of argument you are making is at least a step in the direction that I’m advocating. If they say something about their record that’s inaccurate, then show where or why it is inaccurate. That’s a fair argument…but instead we mainly hear people getting oh so insulted by the rhetoric.
And, I still also contend that in order to be taken seriously, there should be discussion of what the Democrats actually do stand for in terms of national security. It seems to me that they are all over the place: some who don’t even think that terrorism is a major threat, some who think that it is but that Iraq has nothing to do with it, some who think that Iraq initally had nothing to do with GWOT but now does, and some who take it all pretty seriously but just want to make sure we don’t strip away civil liberties in protecting ourselves against outside threats.
Is it too much for me to ask which of the above I’m voting for if I cast a vote in protest of my own party?? It seems to me that these are pretty important questions to ask and that I have a right to ask them.
But Cheney isn’t simply asserting that the Republican stance is better. He is calling names. He is making attacks against the Democrats while not offering any facts to back it up other than the standard RNC talking points. Yet it’s the Democrats that you tell to grow up. What’s wrong with this picture?
You have been fooled by the media machine.
Yes, you do have the right to ask them. But by asking them you are falling into Rove’s trap. I see you repeatedly ask for Democratic plans on this board. Repeatedly, I see people reference Murtha’s withdrawl, Clarke, and then some third plan I cannot for the life of me remember. If, at any time, you took them seriously, you would then say, “Ok, there are alternative plans out there.”
Yet, you seem to continue to insist there are no plans. Is a plan not a plan if you don’t have a whole party behind it? Are multiple plans for discussion worse than a single, mindless purpose?
You have been fooled into quizzing the minority opposition for standing up and saying “Wait! No! Stop! This is all wrong!”
You are being played perfectly.
You should be asking those in power the questions.
What have you done right?
What progress have you made?
Why have you lied to me and the American public?
Why should I trust you?
How can I trust you?
What do you propose that we do to make us safer?
Why have you taken away my rights and my liberties?
Who are you really working for?
Show me the safer country.
Show me the safer world.
Show me that you have imrpoved anything at all.
Show me.
Instead you are tricked into saying “Why should I vote for a Democratic congressman if he doesn’t have a full plan for an Iraqi solution?”
You, Sir, have been played.
Ah, yes, it’s all Rove, isn’t it. I should have realized this but then of course I am being played.
What a crock.
If you paid attention to my comments beyond where your mind goes into “NEOCON ALERT” mode, you’d know that I have repeatedly acknowledged that there are Democrat plans (I have even said I could consider endorsing Biden’s plan for Iraq). In fact, in the very post that you are responding to, I alluded to the fact that there are different voices coming out of the Democratic party. All I’m asking is which vision does the party endorse, or if it’s all fragmented, how am I to know what the Democratic leadership will do if they get in power?
And on a final note, that would be “Ma’am”, not “Sir”.
The questions you don’t ask are as important as the questions you ask. The questions you don’t answer are as important as the questions you answer.
This isn’t “NEOCON Alert” and this isn’t a crock.
The starting point is that nothing is better than what’s going on now. A zero sum game would be progress.
Beyond that, I do agree. I wish I knew the plan the Democrats endorsed. I am happy, however, that they are, at the least, discussing multiple plans. That there is no uniform agreement to this date I find to be a reflection of the country. I am okay with uncertainty. I want a decision, but I am willing to let it be debated.
Except. It can’t be debated. It can’t be debated when every single option is “Cut and run” and “let’s the terrorists win.”
I want to know which vision they endorse. But right now, I think putting checks on the current vision is a good first step to starting towards a new one.
Jim S,
If I ask Cheney to grow up too, would that make you happy?
This is what makes me absolutely lose it. Why in the hell would the Republican rhetoric stop the Democrats from discussing the actual merits of their proposals? It wouldn’t…unless they choose to let it do so. Are they going on the Sunday news shows and stating their positions? NO. Are they issuing press releases stating their positions? NO. Are they creating campaign ads that show that they aren’t weak on national security? NO. Their whole approach is to play the victim to Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld, instead of standing up and debating the issues.
This is what makes me absolutely lose it. Why in the hell would the Republican rhetoric stop the Democrats from discussing the actual merits of their proposals?
Because those proposals would imeadiatly be twisted by the paid hit meadia hacks. It would get selectivaly quoted, and idsected by people who know nothing of international relations and startegy.
Because there ae no good solutions, only lesser of evil choices(which are ripe for the above described reasons)
Because it is hard to formulate a response to an ongoing situation and it would be stupid to try to with out complete knowledge of the situation. That knowledge being immpossible to obtain due to this adsminsitrations propensity for classifying everthing that might make them look bad.
There are about a million good reasons, but my guess is you are looking for any reason at all to not vote for Dems, so probably there is no way to sway you and others like you. So I propose the Dems dont even try, and instead spend their time and effort on things that aren’t destined for faliure.
I apologise for the sloppy grammer, but by now some of you will have discovered that I have a slight case of dyslexia. When I have to type fast because of my schedule, it crops up more frequently. So I beg your humble tolerance in that regard.
Right after 911, people lost their jobs for disagreeing with the president. Editors over the country were fired. Bill Maher lost his show for saying far tamer things than Olberman said recently (yeah, I know, wrong thread, but…). They did not ask to be victims.
Murtha, distinguised Vet, stood up and was called out for it. Swiftboated. He did not ask to be a victim.
Clinton. Ambushed on Fox News. Is now a raving lunatic to hear the reports. He did not ask to be the victim.
Standing up to Bush makes you a victim. They come after you. It stifles debate. Call them cowards if you will. Maybe they are. But don’t pretend that overtures of debate is exactly what creates future victims in this environment.
All you can do is lower your head and hope to buck off the existing administration, saddle and all.
Arguing details is fine, but the rider has to go.
Huh??? Maybe I’m showing ignorance here, but I have no idea what you are talking about with this one.
As for the rest…talk about fearmongering. Murtha swiftboated? He proposed withdrawal and the administration countered, yes, with harsh rhetoric, that they were strongly opposed to his proposal. He hasn’t been sent to a gulag, I don’t see anyone doing a smear campaign on him or endangering him in any way, other than to argue against his proposal.
Clinton: had every right to defend his record and I commend the parts where he did that honestly. Ambushed? Hardly. He was asked a question and he had an opportunity to respond to it. Oh, wait, I forgot about that SMIRK…wow, that was really mean of Wallace, wasn’t it? Of course I can see now why Dems can’t get there message out…people are smirking at them.
Yes, I will call people cowards if they don’t feel that they can put forth ideas, if they refuse to even try because they say that others have been treated harshly. What are they afraid of?
Google links for ‘Murtha’ ‘Swift’ ‘Boat’
Looking up the bit on editors. I think I exaggerated columnists, but I’m having a hard time finding it.
Post 9/11 Censorship – Click news and commentary. Mostly columnists got fired. I had forgotten about some of these and not heard of others.
They have. They’ve offered policy proposals on fighting terror, salvaging Iraq, and building consensus among our allies.
Additionally these have been pointed out to you here in the past.
Yet you continue to claim otherwise. So do us all a favor and save it. We get it already, you’ve swallowed the broom handle and didn’t gag. Take that act to Vegas.
My apologies. I disagree with C Stanley, somewhat vehemently on certain issues, but statements like that have no business here.
Thanks, egrubs. Now that you’ve gone all nice and reasonable, it makes me feel a bit bad to refute something you posted earlier but it is an important point. You linked to a webpage that began with this quote:
This has been taken out of context. Ari actually said it in response to a reporter commenting on a bigoted remark that was made by a (yes, Republican) congressman from LA. It was an inflammatory remark about Arabs. To be completely accurate, later in the same press conference, Ari was also asked about journalists who were criticizing the president (was that Mahrer, maybe? Not sure of the timing) and he did refer back to the comment quoted above and stated it a bit differently…so yes, in a way he was asking journalists to exercise some restraint but the actual quote above was not anything to do with criticism of the administration, it was made in reference to a slur on Muslims.
Here’s Hitch explaining how the Fleischer quote has been distorted.
Erm….I linked that page as an example of journalists losing their jobs for opposing the powers that be. I know some of them lost their jobs because, immediately following 9/11, the country was so sick with idiocy and a desire for revenge, any criticism of our actions was very unwelcome. That is exactly the sort of scary atmosphere when we should value those voices the most.
I couldn’t care less about Mr. Fleischer’s quote, or half of that site. I was using it merely in reference to
which again, was slightly exaggerated.
So, you can set up a straw man and beat down the site for all the reasons you choose, but that had nothing to do with the current discussion …
… which was the environment that could scare voices silent. It is far easier to call someone a coward when you speak for the majority than to stand up for the minority when you risk your livlihood.
egrubs,
I see your point but it wasn’t clear to me who you were blaming for the environment that “could scare voices silent”. Since the link that you posted insinuated that the administration was to blame (by placing two quotes at the top of the page), I thought that this was your opinion (and frankly, the quote they have from Ashcroft really is over the top)
My apologies if I misunderstood your intentions.
“I have said in the past, that I do consider myself a reluctant neocon.”
“If you paid attention to my comments beyond where your mind goes into “NEOCON ALERT” mode”
The first quote was from a comment on a thread further up. The second comment was from a comment on this thread.
I’ll give you all 1 guess who made both of these comments, and probably has a crush on Karl Rove. LOL
Pyst,
You can insinuate whatever you please about my thoughts on Karl Rove (though of course nothing I’ve ever written would back up what you are saying) but frankly, I’m puzzled by your obsession with me. Yes, I made the two statements above. I do, in fact consider myself as somewhat allied with neocon philosophy. The second statement that you quoted was not an attempt to deny that, but rather it was me pointing out that as soon as you interpret someone as being a neocon you stop actually reading what that person says. Not exactly the contradiction that you seem to imply.
C Stanley- Didn’t you once claim that if George Bush had the power of censorship of the press, we would all be blissfully oblivious to bad news about the war, and he would still have his popularity, and a chance to win it? You compared his situation to FDR’s, who, you claimed, would never have had any public support if Americans had seen images of D-Day. You believe that Bush should be able to censor negative information about his administration’s policies,don’t you?
You can correct me if I’m wrong in my recollection or your opinions of censorship!
Kim,
You aren’t wrong in that I pointed out the censorship practiced by FDR, but no, I do not think that Bush should be permitted to do the same. I pointed out the analogy because to me it illustrates the different mindsets of the two time periods. “Loose lips sink ships” was endorsed by most Americans then; now it is not.
The reason I think this is important is because I believe many of our polarized opinions right now are due to reevaluating how much transparency we can and should have when it comes to national security issues. I’m not sure yet where I fall on that spectrum; certainly I don’t think we should reenact FDR’s Office of Censorship, but I do see why it is a lot harder to fight a war when the dissent is so public both at home and abroad.
PING:
TITLE: My mom needs your vote
BLOG NAME: Liberal and Loving It
Yes, I’m a Democrat and my mom’s a Republican. But mom trumps party. So on with the story: This past Friday evening I got home from work and was looking forward to my first minimal work weekend in a long